ANSWER A TO QUESTION 8 Q-1
Torts Barb v. Adam
Negligence Per Se - See under Breach. (defined intra) Crossing the double line - excusable
NEGLIGENCE
Negligence where a duty is owed and that duty is breached and that breach is the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff[’]s damages.
Here Barb will argue that Adam owed her a general duty of due care to act as a reasonable person and prevent foreseeable harm or injury by driving in a safe and appropriate manner. Moreover[,] Barb will assert that Adam owed a duty to follow the rules of the road.
Breach
Because Adam failed to wear his helmet[,] Barb will argue Negligence Per Se[;] a violation of statute in California creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence.
A state statute required a motorcyclist to wear a safety helmet while riding. The intent of the legislature was to protect the motorcyclist from head injures from accidents. Adam is a motorcyclist. Here the legislat[ion] intended to protect him[,] not Barb. The classification is motorcyclist which Adam not Barb is. The type of injury is a head injury of a motorcyclist and passenger.
There is no negligence per se as it is not the type of injury (“a bee sting”) the legislature is trying to prevent.
Barb will argue that Adam failed to control his motorcycle and he owed her a foreseeable general duty of due care as a motorcyclist to stay on the appropriate side of the road. Adam[,] after being landed on by a bee[,] brushed it away and lost control of his vehicle, breaching his duty of due care to drive safely and to maintain control of his bike and drive on his side of the road. Adam lost control of the bike[,] fell and skidded over the double line[,] a violation of statute[,] causing Barb to swerve and strike Dave[’]s truck. It is the intent of the legislator to protect other motorist[s] from injury[.] Both are motorists and suffer the type of injury injuring herself and Dave’s property.
Causation Actual Causation
But for Adam loosing [sic] control of his bike and crossing the double line[,] Barb would not have been injured. Adam is a substantial factor of her injuries.
There is actual causation. Proximate Causation
It is foreseeable that when one loses control of a motorcycle and fails to (not cross) the double lines[,] which is a violation of statute negligence per se[,] that it would cause Barb to swerve in avoidance of striking Adam and his bike causing an accident with Dave. Adam was the proximate cause of her accident[.]
There is proximate causation. Damages
Barb suffered personal injury of a broken sternum and was seriously injured. Her car was bad[l]y damaged[.]
Defenses
Contributory Negligence
When a plaintiff has a responsibility to act with conduct of a certain standard and fails to hold at or above that level of conduct and contributes to his or her own injury.
Here, Adam will argue that Barb[’]s own negligence caused her injuries. Barb by looking down at the floor to get her sunglasses placed herself in jeopardy of accident[.] Here Barb failed to hold to the conduct required of drivers to drive safely and keep the[ir] eyes on the road.
Barb will argue it is normal to avert eyes [on] dropping.
There is contribut[or]y negligence. In some states it is a Complete Bar to Recovery. Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence is an appointment of fault and will affect the recovery of the parties depe[n]d[in]g on the type of comparative negligence the[re] must be under 50% in order to recover.
Adam will assert: By swerving and crossing into Dave[’]s path here Barb looked at the floor and averted her eyes from the road. Barb has a percentage of fault in the accident. Barb will argue it was brief and would not have mattered. The courts will decide if there is comparative negligence.
This is comparative negligence. Assumption of the Risk
Knowing the dangers and being fully aware and accept[in]g the risk is a defense under Assumption of the Risk[.]
Here Adam will argue that Barb drove know[in]g there are dangers out on the road and the[re] are accidents that happens[sic][.] She had full and complete knowledge.
Barb will counter that she was unaware of Adam[’]s bee incident and who knows when an accident will occur? She could not have complete knowledge.
There is no assumption of the risk based on Barb’s lack of knowledge and accepta[n]ce of Adam’s driv[in]g skills.
Damages/Remedies General Damages
Barb will seek to recover her past[,] present[,] and future pay and suffering[.] In some states she may recover economic loss of her car. (May reduce future to recover).
Special Damages
Barb will seek to recover any certain and foreseeable losses related to her lost wages [and] medical bills. (provable expenses)
Nominals
To assert plaintiff[’]s rights
There will be no nominals because of the type of accident. If there is it will be small. Punitive Damages
As there appears to be joint tortfeasance[,] Dave speed[in]g and Adam recklessness[,] she may seek dam[a]ges from both. However[,] her total damages may not exceed the amount by collecting each successive tortfeasor[;] may seek injury from each other or contributions. Barb v. Dave
Negligence per se Defined supra.
Here, Dave violated the posted speed limit. Under negligence per se the legislature intended the speed limit to protect from car accidents. The type of injury intended to prevent to motorists Dave & Barb, both parties with the characteristics of parties injured. Here Dave may be found to have created a rebuttable presumption of neglige[nc]e under CA law.
There is neglige[nc]e per se.
Dave will assert that Barb crossed the line and struck him. His speed would not matter and for severity of injury, not causing the accident.
Duty
Defined supra.
Here Barb will assert that Dave owed a general duty of due care to drive within the speed limit. A reasonable driver would foresee that speeding may cause serious injuries and inability to avoid accidents.
Breach
Defined supra.
Here Dave drove at twice the speed limit. A reasonable person would foresee that speed[in]g would breach a general duty of due care to other drivers like Barb. Dave breached his duty and the neglige[n]ce per se created a rebuttable presumption of negligence, violating the speed limit.
Dave will assert that speeding limit [sic] was designed to control avoidable accidents and that Barb swervy[sic] over the double line, here she created the accident and breached her duty to Dave.
Actual Causation
But for Dave violat[in]g the speed limit Barb would not have been severely injured in the head[-]on collision[.] Dave is a substantial factor in Barb’s injures.
There is Actual Causation[.] Proximate Causation
It is reasonably forseeable that Dave[’]s speeding was the legal and proximate cause of Barb[’]s severe injuries.
There is proximate causation. Damages
Defined supra. Defenses
Contribut[or]y Neglige[nc]e Defined Supra
Dave will argue that Barb crossed th[e] double lines and that she contributed to her own injures by fail[in]g to keep her eyes on the road and swer[vi]ng to avoid [w]recking by en[ter]ing into an oncoming lane & crossing double lines. A driver owes a conduct of due care to stay in her lane and drive defensively with their eyes on the road. Barb failed to do this and contributed to her accident.
There is contributory negligence. Comparative Negligence
Defined Supra.
Here Barb contributed to her injuries defined infra in contribut[or]y negligence. There is comparative negligence.
Last Clear Chance.
There is no Last Clear Chance. Ass[u]mpti[on] of the risk Defined Infra
There is not assumption of the risk. Dave did not know Barb would have an accident and not give up her offer.
Generals Defined supra.
Barb may recover general damages for her suff[er]i[n]g past present and future reduced for Adam. Specials Defined supra. Several Defined supra. Punitives Defined supra.
